Persistent vandalism just like Song Joong-ki's page due to recent engagement news Pain and Powed ( talk) 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Song_Hye-kyo&action=history
Happy 14th wiki-anniversary in advance.
—usernamekiran
(talk)
12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
— fortuna velut luna 14:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection you said that Sing will be semi-protected for a period of 10 weeks but on the page for Sing I noticed that the page is not protected yet. Bowling is life ( talk) 20:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Dera Samsara,
Thank you for all you've done in supporting my work on the Sony E-mount lens articles and for talking with User:Usernamekiran. I've been absent as of late due to home life and multiple family emergencies occurring all at once, which has mad doing much difficult as of late. However, I am glad that the majority of the articles in jeopardy have been cleared.
- Raine
Chevy111 ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
As present isn't a geological epoch people might not want it used in statements of geological ranges. Recent is an epoch, but the Holocene article states that it is invalid under current rules. My opinion is that Holocene is the appropriate usage, but it might be worth raising the issue at WP:TOL (and other relevant major biological projects). (I changed Cycad to say Holocene, before discovering that you had made similar changes elsewhere.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 23:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:Disambiguation pages with potential, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pariah24 ( talk) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Greeting, Samsara
I wonder if I could have a word with you about the Microsoft Office 2010 article, which you have protected on the grounds of content dispute. I am afraid this is a case of editor harassment, not content dispute.
The 2601:5c2:200:31ae:f15b:f5c2:8a8c:9212 belongs to a very well-known stalker who exclusively chases Codename Lisa around Wikipedia and reverts her. (This type of harassment is explained in WP:HOUND.) Although he contributes (=attacks) from different IP addresses, his IP ranges are known. Example of what he did in the past:
This isn't a full list. (I am not in the habit of keeping a list of what a third-party does to another third-party.) But Codename Lisa keeps a full list along with IP geolocation information.
Now, you are probably asking what is my interest this matter? Well, Microsoft Office 2010 is now showing wrong info because of the work of a malicious person who was smart enough to write an average edit summary.
FleetCommand ( Speak your mind!) 08:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not have checkuser to confirm that.You cannot use CU to confirm that; you need the geolocation tool that you (and I) already have. (CU does something entirely different.) Other people who have attended this case were all admins, such as yourself. The question is: Assuming you could see the truth full and untarnish, would you have attended this case?
We are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, and accusing other editors of this-and-that may not be helpful in this regard, for anyone!Quite true. But the sordid fact is that vandalism, COI, spam, harassment, socking, hounding, lobbying and disruptive editing has been part of our effort to build this encyclopedia. The important fact is: You say this sentence when you know for sure that the accusation is false and non-constructive.
Focus on content, not the contributor!If ask so, then so be it. This contribution is false: The source says so.
I will always immediately lift full protection as soon as it's clear the conflict has been resolved in the spirit of our goals.This person had been hounding me for four years. There is no end and no resolution in view. Of course, I personally do not insist that you lift this protection; it is suboptimal but not a catastrophe at all. (If the situation was serious, I'd have presented my evidence in ANI and asked the admins who previously dealt with the person to reduce the protection.) While you and I are not here for a victory, this certain hound definitely is. And getting this certain poor edit to stick for 8 years is the biggest victory he has achieved to this day. Let's let him have that. After all, he wastes his numbered days in this world on a futile effort to disrupt Wikipedia and spends his afterlife getting punished for it. The way I see it, he is the true loser in this whole affair.
Thanks for initially supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. I regret that the behavior of some immature editors led you to withdraw your support. I will remember your initial support and will do my best to regain your support as time goes by. Please do not hesitate to give me advice at any time, as I ease into my new role as administrator. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hello. The original expiration date for semi-protection was February 2022. Can it be changed back, or can you extend time a little bit? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Have a look to User talk : Galgah and hungarian IPs in this page to prevent vandalism and original researches.I already stopped him once.Thanks. Benniejets ( talk) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
They are the same person.84.* is from Budapest area and Galgah writes about hungarian subjects.He also wrote the same things of 84* in the article. User talk:Csalinka is another username of this guy.He uses also this one to write always the same things in the article in the last days.There's evidence and they should be blocked.Thanks again for your attention. Benniejets ( talk) 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
You realized the not correct position of this guy and the risks for the article to be vandalized with original numbers. Thanks Samsara.
I followed your suggest.What about locking article?Thanks Benniejets ( talk) 18:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a policy specifically regarding the protection of Latin letters. Can you point me to it? Thanks, Enigma msg 15:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering to do page protection review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC) |
p b p 14:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Morning! You recently semi-protected Linkage disequilibrium after it came off its previous pp and immediately got hit with the same refspam again. Could you please do the same thing for Supergene and Co-adaptation, which are subject to the same treatment? (came off semi and got spammed again right away) Thank you! -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What did you mean by "the effect of [pending changes] is not expected to kick in until after the IP first encounters it"? Their pending revision was accepted before I even knew it had happened, by an editor who somehow didn't know it was blatantly false information. This IP will just keep changing the page and having their revision accepted by editors who don't know it's vandalism, then it will need to keep being reverted, so it just feels like there is no protection status on the page at all (or at least, it's not having the intended effect). Ss 112 02:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
IP editor is back. May need a year of protection since they are using multiple IPs. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the protection that page was clogging up my watch list. Whispe ring 03:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello S. I understand why you removed your protection on Basic income ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but you should be aware that the blanking has started again. I had requested the RFPP based on the fact that it is so easy for those IPv6 IPs to change. If the blanking is still going on when you have a chance to see this would please consider restoring the protection. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 04:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey there. Just a quick concern:
I noticed you put the article in question into temporary protection, but where's the protection icon on the article? Usually, when a page is protected, the history log shows two edits in regards to that, of which one includes the padlock icon that appears in the top right of the article. GUtt01 ( talk) 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that on RFPP you were discussing the protection of Norton LiveUpdate. I think 24 hours of full would be the best way of going about this because it's obviously a content dispute and semi protection would be basically saying that we're siding with the logged in users. What do you think? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
On 14 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grey-headed woodpecker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the grey-headed woodpecker (pictured) was split into three separate species in 2014? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grey-headed woodpecker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Grey-headed woodpecker), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih Talk 01:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 09:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, can you tell me please why you did put the page under protection but don't really protect it from the stupid things that some are adding there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.24 ( talk) 13:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Good work with trying to maintain that page and locking it... I would have liked to put clearer info in it, but allot of members seem to not want that. Gvstaylor1 ( talk) 17:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Change The Loud House protection level to 6 months because I want to edit it, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B029:942B:145D:87F0:B3D2:B364 ( talk) 18:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You questioned my contribution on the Dr's page stating that perhaps his views on race had no place in the wiki. Zamorin1851 ( talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Yet you allow a section on his public life to stand, which; a) paints his views on race positively. Zamorin1851 ( talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) b) was completely not cited (the only citation was to a url which does not exist). Zamorin1851 ( talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
But, now all of a sudden, you have a problem with his negative views on the topic being on the wiki. What level of hypocrisy is that? Zamorin1851 ( talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well,the very first paragraph of the public life section talks about his own views on race relations. Why let that stand without citation? Is that paragraph not POV? I am do this because I see this sort of thing all too often. Zamorin1851 ( talk) 09:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) My motivation is simple, to add information about him which was not on the page. Is that not the idea anyway. I am also forthright in stating why I see objections such as the one you yourself raised. To me it is the height of hypocrisy to object to my info based on a cited interview while letting stand the previous entry which carried no citations and is arguably POV. I also note you sidestepped the essence of my question to you. If you want to attribute my motives to something else, have at it. Be my guest Zamorin1851 ( talk) 09:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it not interesting that even now, after all this back and forth, you and the others of similar persuasion have no problem to the sentence presenting his views on race as being progressive, though still not cited! If your goal was to improve Wikipedia and do it with fairness, what explains that? After all you clearly must have read that very first line and decided, "well, this one stays" Zamorin1851 ( talk) 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
[13] The request was for semi-protection not full protection. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think protection until we reach consensus was a good idea, thanks. VM's removed the content 3 or 4 times so I don't see how we get consensus without him but this ( 1, 2, 3) isn't getting us any closer. I try to steer the focus back to content and get nothing of substance to respond to: 4. I'd appreciate some guidance. James J. Lambden ( talk) 23:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We got off on sort of wrong foot. For people who are not familiar with cameras, there can certainly be a confusion about notability of them. Would you like to write an essay about it? I have been writing a counter essay for mobiles since ages lol. Maybe we can request Chevvy to contribute to camera essay. :)
—usernamekiran
(talk)
02:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been told that this page may be doing more harm than good. So just kill it. I have other ways to track the socks. And SALT it, too, please. p b p 03:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Please re protect "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals". 63.96.90.212 is trying to put back "undocumented" again, despite consensus in the talk page to the contrary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 ( talk) 16:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you semi-protected the Shooting of Kian delos Santos article, but I don't see the silver padlock atop it. Has this really been semi-protected? Thanks, SLIGHTLY mad 04:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Samsara, I am new to this and do not know if this is the right forum for the following.
On 30 jan 2017 you made an entry regarding freezing some information regarding armenian massacres. What does this mean? Was the 4200 character information added back? If not ,can we now add it back?
I am currently having a problem with a user who appears to be biased and continually removes one of my entries.
Could you please look at talk page for topal osman. I would appreciate your advice on what should be done.
Veritylookingfortruth
Veritylookingfortruth ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I can live with that.However if this is the case then shouldnt the ergenekon sentencw be removed as well as it has no citation?
Also,what about the armenian information removed and added many times? What does freeze mean? If not added back already when can we do so?
Regards, Veritylookingfortruth Veritylookingfortruth ( talk) 20:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! Page has been protected but just to answer your question, the section is Talk:Mansplaining#Mention_at_the_lead. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You have protected this article upon request on August 24. Please re-consider whether in view of the articles's history a mere semi-protection could be sufficient, given that the edit warring was performed only by IP's or very recent "new users" and that the article's talk page presently shows that further editing by WP authors would make sense. Thanks -- Chris Howard ( talk) 20:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I am commenting here to avoid disrupting your thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard.
I have had persistent difficulties with VM who insists there are roving bands of IPs (and sock-puppet editors) conspiring against him, across several topics, as a means to justify edit-warring and aggressiveness. This justification is easily testable, as he exhibits the same behavior with established editors. The behavior is most prominent in political articles.
I should mention I have been on the receiving end of this behavior. He has responded to several of my comments on article talk pages solely to accuse me of stalking and harassment, without addressing content or policy [1] [2] [3] - there are many more examples. This persists even in articles which I was the first to edit [1]. This is arguably the worst of his behavior but by no means the extent of it.
If the behavior were limited to our interactions it would prompt serious self-reflection, but I haven't experienced such hostile interactions with other editors, and VM has them with many. He has escaped several dozen complaints against him without sanction by obfuscating and deflecting until administrators lose interest. His apparent immunity to sanction seems only to have emboldened him. I have recently limited my article editing partly to avoid confrontation but there is a longterm problem that needs to be addressed. James J. Lambden ( talk) 17:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You have protected the Samuel Saiz page so I can not correct the seasonal appearance tables ... it is missing a Leeds United Totals row. And does it really need to be protected for as long as you have done so, attacks on Leeds players tend to die down a week or so after they sign/leave Exeter White ( talk) 10:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek has now started the same type of actions on the DREAM Act page as he has been doing on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals page. 170.178.156.22 ( talk) 00:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The program is done and covering up the facts is unacceptable. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, could you please lower the protection for the DACA article? It contains some inaccurate statements and is poorly formated but confirmed users like myself can't edit it. Article views just increased x20 within the last three days. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 08:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Where there was once one head, two more appeared. | |
Pure pun-ishment. [14] |
Hello. It's continued! Can you unlock the page? 31.223.133.218 ( talk) 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Question, I wonder if it's possible for you to close this move reqiest: Talk:Celebrity_Big_Brother#Requested_move_10_September_2017? From what I can tell the majority of move requests usually sit around in the backlog. If you can close it thanks! If not do you have any other suggestions? (I can't close it myself as I'm involved.) TheDoctorWho ( talk) 15:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Samsara, thanks for protecting anything Arab-Israeli related but you forgot to add the blue lock icon and create this one here for example for the protected pages in the bottom:
Can you make one for Template:Editnotices/Page/Dome of the Rock, Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel–Lebanon relations, Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel–Syria relations, vice versa? Thanks. Wrestlingring ( talk) 15:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I requested that ECP be placed on the page, which you reluctantly protected. However, at RfPP, you and Enigmaman had noted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict that if they need to be protected, there should be disruption by non-extended confirmed editors, and not just because it relates to WP:ARBPIA3. I still made the request despite the fact there was not much disruption on the page. Do you think it really needs to be protected? — MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The IP (possible sock) who had reinserted the same BLP problematic edit again should not be rewarded. I suggest you go back to last short version, as one editor seems unwilling to even start an RfC on the claims made. Thank you. Collect ( talk) 19:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed a section from an article (that is under DS which states: 1 revert/24 hrs - must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article) because an RfC a few months ago determined (nonadmin close) that consensus was to retain the POV tag and that a rough consensus showed the section was noncompliant with one or more PAGs. As you know, NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, so removal of that section was justified. I am not aware of ever retaining noncompliant sections in a BLP for such a long period of time, so I simply removed it and a disruptive editor reverted my edit, the NPOV tag with it, and provided an incorrect edit summary. On the 9/24 another discussion began about a possible TNT of that section and based on what I read, a quick consensus indicated delete & rewrite, [15], [16]. Will you please look into this because we're looking at a BLP violation, a violation of consensus, and a possible violation of DS? Atsme 📞 📧 02:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
VM, ATYW's issue with you is not the same as mine although your behavior is the same. I don't know what you think you're doing with all the crazy allegations, or are you just being your normal disruptive self? I've provided diffs for the July consensus as well as for the discussion that began on the 24th which also supports what I've stated. It's always the same ole blah, blah dramah most expect from you, VM. It appears you may be TB shopping the way you're acting. Atsme 📞 📧 03:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Your behavior here and now is exactly why I said what I said and why I am here now in hopes of getting something done about it without having to take you to the dramah boards. It appears you've had one too many cups of coffee. Atsme 📞 📧 03:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Alrighty then, next time I need an admin, I'll just position my cursor on the TP of EEng, close my eyes, scroll 3 window-lengths, and wherever it lands is the admin I'll ask. FBDB Atsme 📞 📧 23:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I was surprised to see List of states with limited recognition being given an indef 30/500 protection, and a big warning imposing 1RR on the entire page, based on an Arbcom judgement that seems pretty tangentially related. This appears to be in response to a single reverted edit of arguable benefit. Note that other recent edits by IPs there have had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict (they're mostly discussing North Korea). Indeed, the vast majority of edits to List of states with limited recognition could not conceivably be considered related to the Arab-Israeli dispute and most discussions involving the Arab-Israeli conflict at that talk page have been resolved without need for admin intervention.
Would you mind reconsidering whether this sort of protection is appropriate on this particular article? If you believe this is warranted, would you mind clarifying whether e.g. the 1RR you have imposed applies only to Arab-Israeli related edits, or to all edits whether or not they are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Kahastok talk 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for blocking this troll. He has been bugging me all day. Here are some other accounts that he has created today: [17]. Regards, WWGB ( talk) 13:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
There were two recent edits to Time by User:Pkbwcgs that are not good and I would like to fix them. I can't see why it was protected in the first place. Thank you. 108.20.213.77 ( talk) 02:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Samsara, what is your intention regarding the article Time? How long are you planning on having it semi-protected? I would appreciate it if you would lift any protection. I think we can manage the article against "disruptive" editors and also deal with content disputes without semi-protection. 108.20.213.77 ( talk) 06:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Was it your intention to block these IPs indefinitely? Regards. 121.94.137.73 ( talk) 03:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hiya, on Stephen Chow's article in the first paragraph, it says his net worth is $1 billion USD, I've questioned that and the citations don't back it up at all, it's all gossip to me, so I removed the sentence on the grounds of WP:GOSSIP and WP:NOTATABLOID. I didn't have any objects from a project page when I raised the point, but then not sure if anyone gave it a thought. The currency in the citations doesn't even match the statement. I am not sure the IPs from 171.*.*.* even know English that well. I was wondering if you could have a look for me, let me know if I am correct or not, cheers. Govvy ( talk) 12:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Samsara:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
– —usernamekiran
(talk)
21:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinkbeast ( talk) 18:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Why did you protect that article to only extended confirmed users? Also, why indefinite? Why not 3 or 6 months? Or even a year? ReddyHakky1998 ( talk) 09:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The version including Trump was the stable version. Editors besides myself, supported the version including Trump, such as User:Doc Strange,. Only one editor supports excluding Trump, and his logic relied on specious reasoning, such as his personal opinion that "Trump doesn't belong" even though the sources showed that nearly all commentators connected the October 15, 2017 subpoena of Donald Trump regarding the allegations of sexual assault against him (which he commented on at October 16, 2017, at the White House) to the Weinstein allegations. You are basically reverting to a version that was supported by only one editor, over the stable version that was supported by two editors. Why? Peacebroker ( talk) 23:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
See diff here by Doc_Strange supporting the inclusion of Trump several days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Me_Too_(hashtag)&oldid=809599762
That makes at least two editors in support, and only one editor who opposes, and who edit warred to delete this matter which has been in there for many days, with stability, until this person came along and decided to subject the world to his idiosyncratic, irrelevant opinions. I cited at least 6 sources that connected the Weinstein allegations to the Trump subpoena of October 15, 2017. Every source stated that the two events were not merely coincidental. Yet because one editor believes there is "no connection" because there are no "new allegations" (although there is a new subpoena of sitting president that just happens to come 10 days after this story broke" it must just be a coincidence. Why are you giving this person what he wants, when he A) has no other editors who support his views; B) he has no sources who support his views; C) he edit warred to delete sourced material that had been sitting there stably for several days? I do not understand your actions at all. Please look more closely. Peacebroker ( talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, EVEN THE SOLE EDITOR IN SUPPORT OF DELETING TRUMP concedes that the sources say it is connected; he merely opines that the sources are wrong: "many news articles about him mention Weinstein/#MeToo, but that doesn't mean they are connected." - IP editor on the talk page.
So basically, you reverted to the version which:
Hi, would it be possible to IP ban the troll who keeps using different usernames and tries to add Trump's name to the Me Too (hashtag) page, please? Not only does the person keep vandalizing the page, this person also uses very profane language to abuse other Wiki users. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posters5 ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posters5 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe the page is being vandalized again. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 05:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the Talk and History pages, you'll see that "Another Believer" is just making a nuisance of himself. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 05:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I see several Portal pages link to Modern evolutionary synthesis, which you quite reasonably redirected to a dab a while ago. It's not my field; please do you have any thoughts on where these links should now lead? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Samsara: thanks for upping the protection for Dennis Wise, at least no one can say that he is a very small man Pepper Gaming ( talk) Pepper Gaming ( talk) 13:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Samsara,
Could you remove PC1 since the article is semi protected indefinitely? -- 1989 19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Samsara. Just wanted to drop a quick note and let you know that I extended the page protection you applied to List of The Loud House episodes. This has been an ongoing issue at that article for quite some time and there has been some socking by a blocked editor thrown in as well. If this continues I may just protect the page indefinitely. Anyway I just wanted to let you know what I did and why. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Samsara. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Samsara, thanks for protecting the Chad Morris article. As requested, you can now lift the protection status per the Razorbacks website. Thanks, Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:A Way Out (video game) could also use something, it's being hit the same as the article page was. Cheers, He iro 05:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Neverrainy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Time: Dec 08, 2017 05:58:30
Message: Was this a mistake? Blocked without warning for vandalism but I can't see any vandalistic edits...
Notes:
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 05:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
RiceKid ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Time: Dec 08, 2017 14:29:30
Message: Hi, are you OK with my restoring TPA so they can appeal, there?
Notes:
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 14:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you protected several pages such as Fairy Tail and One Piece, but you did not add the template. Therefore, those pages are not 'protected' yet. Can you please check them? Thank you and have a nice day! Requiem II ( talk) 23:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you you uploaded a Semi-protection for article Lauren Jauregui can you show me how to do that for Normani Kordei. I already got the request started I just wanted more in sight on how to go about it. I feel as though her page too needs to be protected because we have users that vandalise her page. She has received enough coverage to keep it a stand alone and violators need to be stoped! Welcometothenewmillenium ( talk) 02:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for semi-protecting Johnny Manziel. However, because it is semi-protected, pending changes protection is now useless since all edits will be accepted, and since autoconfirmed users can't edit it, no edits will need to be reviewed. Can you remove the PC protection? — MRD2014 Happy Holidays! 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you lessen the protection for Swift if no one is going to edit it? The studios section and name of the tour have been wrong for many weeks as two examples. Studios was posted in Talk with no reply. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf ( talk)
Wow... It's not an edit war case! Have you checked their edits? They ignore sourced info and maps, and just add Afghanistan to article without providing any reliable source. They also falsify current sourced info. Sorry, but I don't agree with your comment on RPP and I submit my request again. How can I discuss anything with several random IPs and IP-hoppers who ignore everything and just like to add their country to that article?! -- Wario-Man ( talk) 14:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and have a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
Hey! I think you may have slightly misread the situation. There have been multiple attempts to create a consensus regarding the material. Including recent attempts by me to engage in discussion with those attempting to include the quote. I do not deny a real argument can be made for including it, and some sources that aren't written by Neo-Nazis do refer to it. However, this does not change the fact that the sources being shoved into this article by IPs have absolutely 0 place in a BLP. A anti-semitic "white identity" blog like Occidental Observer has no place being treated as a reliable source in a Wikipedia article. I also ask that you read the pages cited of the book I described as being written by a "fringe nutter": the whole thing is an entirely transparent anti-semitic rant about the Jewish agenda. It is the inclusion of these sources by IPs that clearly violates WP:BLP, not the quote itself, which is indeed referenced in other sources. BLPs of Jews should not be sourced to the writings of fringe, out and open anti-semites. Semi-protection is required, to stop this from happening. Brustopher ( talk) 18:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
those who want to include the material have refused to engage on the talk pageThis does not seem to reflect reality. I see plenty of discussion of this on the talk page, including the most recent post being by an IP and on this very issue. Samsara 11:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed twice now that IP's seem to target Iggy's talk page, he left a rather interesting message on my talk page a few days ago, I was wondering if you can also keep an eye on it. I was wondering if some protection is needed on it for him to stop these weird edits. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 11:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. You recently move-protected this article indefinitely. It is also edit-protected indefinitely and has been for some years. Protecting administrator is no longer active. Can you unprotect? Thanks, and happy Christmas. 87.81.130.219 ( talk) 13:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
As witnessed over the last two days, an anonymous user of varying IP address tried to express themselves, saying that there is an issue with the English language variation beginning with this edit by Future Perfect at Sunrise, which changed most words in the article to American English. However, as the anonymous user rightfoully states, the city is affiliated with British English way more than with American English. On top, there was no Engvar template ({{ Use American English}} / {{ Use British English}}) given on the article to justify the edit of changing it forcedly. I have since replaced most content with British English and added the according template to the article. What hinders this article from enhance is Zzuuzz, Favonian, Lectonar and RickinBaltimore constantly reverting the anonymous user instead of reading. Even if written in a hard langauge, it is easily visible that it is not spam or trolling. If there is something to discuss, wether American English goes over British English from your POV, seek for consensus here. Thanks, Lordtobi ( ✉) 17:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
5 July 2016 changes
10 February 2016 changes
9 February 2016 changes
29 October 2015 changes
Merry Christmas Samsara!!
Hi Samsara, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia!
,
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
13:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Samsara: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, — MRD2014 Merry Christmas! 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
A blessed feast to you and yours. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Samsara: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey there Samsara - just wanted to flag that I removed protection from the above. I don't think the level of vandalism is really high enough to warrant protection for four months. I'm happy to keep an eye on it and reinstate if necessary. Thanks! — fox 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism just like Song Joong-ki's page due to recent engagement news Pain and Powed ( talk) 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Song_Hye-kyo&action=history
Happy 14th wiki-anniversary in advance.
—usernamekiran
(talk)
12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
— fortuna velut luna 14:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection you said that Sing will be semi-protected for a period of 10 weeks but on the page for Sing I noticed that the page is not protected yet. Bowling is life ( talk) 20:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Dera Samsara,
Thank you for all you've done in supporting my work on the Sony E-mount lens articles and for talking with User:Usernamekiran. I've been absent as of late due to home life and multiple family emergencies occurring all at once, which has mad doing much difficult as of late. However, I am glad that the majority of the articles in jeopardy have been cleared.
- Raine
Chevy111 ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
As present isn't a geological epoch people might not want it used in statements of geological ranges. Recent is an epoch, but the Holocene article states that it is invalid under current rules. My opinion is that Holocene is the appropriate usage, but it might be worth raising the issue at WP:TOL (and other relevant major biological projects). (I changed Cycad to say Holocene, before discovering that you had made similar changes elsewhere.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 23:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:Disambiguation pages with potential, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pariah24 ( talk) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Greeting, Samsara
I wonder if I could have a word with you about the Microsoft Office 2010 article, which you have protected on the grounds of content dispute. I am afraid this is a case of editor harassment, not content dispute.
The 2601:5c2:200:31ae:f15b:f5c2:8a8c:9212 belongs to a very well-known stalker who exclusively chases Codename Lisa around Wikipedia and reverts her. (This type of harassment is explained in WP:HOUND.) Although he contributes (=attacks) from different IP addresses, his IP ranges are known. Example of what he did in the past:
This isn't a full list. (I am not in the habit of keeping a list of what a third-party does to another third-party.) But Codename Lisa keeps a full list along with IP geolocation information.
Now, you are probably asking what is my interest this matter? Well, Microsoft Office 2010 is now showing wrong info because of the work of a malicious person who was smart enough to write an average edit summary.
FleetCommand ( Speak your mind!) 08:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not have checkuser to confirm that.You cannot use CU to confirm that; you need the geolocation tool that you (and I) already have. (CU does something entirely different.) Other people who have attended this case were all admins, such as yourself. The question is: Assuming you could see the truth full and untarnish, would you have attended this case?
We are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, and accusing other editors of this-and-that may not be helpful in this regard, for anyone!Quite true. But the sordid fact is that vandalism, COI, spam, harassment, socking, hounding, lobbying and disruptive editing has been part of our effort to build this encyclopedia. The important fact is: You say this sentence when you know for sure that the accusation is false and non-constructive.
Focus on content, not the contributor!If ask so, then so be it. This contribution is false: The source says so.
I will always immediately lift full protection as soon as it's clear the conflict has been resolved in the spirit of our goals.This person had been hounding me for four years. There is no end and no resolution in view. Of course, I personally do not insist that you lift this protection; it is suboptimal but not a catastrophe at all. (If the situation was serious, I'd have presented my evidence in ANI and asked the admins who previously dealt with the person to reduce the protection.) While you and I are not here for a victory, this certain hound definitely is. And getting this certain poor edit to stick for 8 years is the biggest victory he has achieved to this day. Let's let him have that. After all, he wastes his numbered days in this world on a futile effort to disrupt Wikipedia and spends his afterlife getting punished for it. The way I see it, he is the true loser in this whole affair.
Thanks for initially supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. I regret that the behavior of some immature editors led you to withdraw your support. I will remember your initial support and will do my best to regain your support as time goes by. Please do not hesitate to give me advice at any time, as I ease into my new role as administrator. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hello. The original expiration date for semi-protection was February 2022. Can it be changed back, or can you extend time a little bit? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Have a look to User talk : Galgah and hungarian IPs in this page to prevent vandalism and original researches.I already stopped him once.Thanks. Benniejets ( talk) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
They are the same person.84.* is from Budapest area and Galgah writes about hungarian subjects.He also wrote the same things of 84* in the article. User talk:Csalinka is another username of this guy.He uses also this one to write always the same things in the article in the last days.There's evidence and they should be blocked.Thanks again for your attention. Benniejets ( talk) 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
You realized the not correct position of this guy and the risks for the article to be vandalized with original numbers. Thanks Samsara.
I followed your suggest.What about locking article?Thanks Benniejets ( talk) 18:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a policy specifically regarding the protection of Latin letters. Can you point me to it? Thanks, Enigma msg 15:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering to do page protection review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC) |
p b p 14:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Morning! You recently semi-protected Linkage disequilibrium after it came off its previous pp and immediately got hit with the same refspam again. Could you please do the same thing for Supergene and Co-adaptation, which are subject to the same treatment? (came off semi and got spammed again right away) Thank you! -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What did you mean by "the effect of [pending changes] is not expected to kick in until after the IP first encounters it"? Their pending revision was accepted before I even knew it had happened, by an editor who somehow didn't know it was blatantly false information. This IP will just keep changing the page and having their revision accepted by editors who don't know it's vandalism, then it will need to keep being reverted, so it just feels like there is no protection status on the page at all (or at least, it's not having the intended effect). Ss 112 02:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
IP editor is back. May need a year of protection since they are using multiple IPs. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the protection that page was clogging up my watch list. Whispe ring 03:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello S. I understand why you removed your protection on Basic income ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but you should be aware that the blanking has started again. I had requested the RFPP based on the fact that it is so easy for those IPv6 IPs to change. If the blanking is still going on when you have a chance to see this would please consider restoring the protection. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 04:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey there. Just a quick concern:
I noticed you put the article in question into temporary protection, but where's the protection icon on the article? Usually, when a page is protected, the history log shows two edits in regards to that, of which one includes the padlock icon that appears in the top right of the article. GUtt01 ( talk) 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that on RFPP you were discussing the protection of Norton LiveUpdate. I think 24 hours of full would be the best way of going about this because it's obviously a content dispute and semi protection would be basically saying that we're siding with the logged in users. What do you think? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
On 14 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grey-headed woodpecker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the grey-headed woodpecker (pictured) was split into three separate species in 2014? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grey-headed woodpecker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Grey-headed woodpecker), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih Talk 01:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 09:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, can you tell me please why you did put the page under protection but don't really protect it from the stupid things that some are adding there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.24 ( talk) 13:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Good work with trying to maintain that page and locking it... I would have liked to put clearer info in it, but allot of members seem to not want that. Gvstaylor1 ( talk) 17:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Change The Loud House protection level to 6 months because I want to edit it, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B029:942B:145D:87F0:B3D2:B364 ( talk) 18:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You questioned my contribution on the Dr's page stating that perhaps his views on race had no place in the wiki. Zamorin1851 ( talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Yet you allow a section on his public life to stand, which; a) paints his views on race positively. Zamorin1851 ( talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) b) was completely not cited (the only citation was to a url which does not exist). Zamorin1851 ( talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
But, now all of a sudden, you have a problem with his negative views on the topic being on the wiki. What level of hypocrisy is that? Zamorin1851 ( talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well,the very first paragraph of the public life section talks about his own views on race relations. Why let that stand without citation? Is that paragraph not POV? I am do this because I see this sort of thing all too often. Zamorin1851 ( talk) 09:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) My motivation is simple, to add information about him which was not on the page. Is that not the idea anyway. I am also forthright in stating why I see objections such as the one you yourself raised. To me it is the height of hypocrisy to object to my info based on a cited interview while letting stand the previous entry which carried no citations and is arguably POV. I also note you sidestepped the essence of my question to you. If you want to attribute my motives to something else, have at it. Be my guest Zamorin1851 ( talk) 09:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it not interesting that even now, after all this back and forth, you and the others of similar persuasion have no problem to the sentence presenting his views on race as being progressive, though still not cited! If your goal was to improve Wikipedia and do it with fairness, what explains that? After all you clearly must have read that very first line and decided, "well, this one stays" Zamorin1851 ( talk) 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
[13] The request was for semi-protection not full protection. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think protection until we reach consensus was a good idea, thanks. VM's removed the content 3 or 4 times so I don't see how we get consensus without him but this ( 1, 2, 3) isn't getting us any closer. I try to steer the focus back to content and get nothing of substance to respond to: 4. I'd appreciate some guidance. James J. Lambden ( talk) 23:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We got off on sort of wrong foot. For people who are not familiar with cameras, there can certainly be a confusion about notability of them. Would you like to write an essay about it? I have been writing a counter essay for mobiles since ages lol. Maybe we can request Chevvy to contribute to camera essay. :)
—usernamekiran
(talk)
02:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been told that this page may be doing more harm than good. So just kill it. I have other ways to track the socks. And SALT it, too, please. p b p 03:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Please re protect "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals". 63.96.90.212 is trying to put back "undocumented" again, despite consensus in the talk page to the contrary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 ( talk) 16:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you semi-protected the Shooting of Kian delos Santos article, but I don't see the silver padlock atop it. Has this really been semi-protected? Thanks, SLIGHTLY mad 04:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Samsara, I am new to this and do not know if this is the right forum for the following.
On 30 jan 2017 you made an entry regarding freezing some information regarding armenian massacres. What does this mean? Was the 4200 character information added back? If not ,can we now add it back?
I am currently having a problem with a user who appears to be biased and continually removes one of my entries.
Could you please look at talk page for topal osman. I would appreciate your advice on what should be done.
Veritylookingfortruth
Veritylookingfortruth ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I can live with that.However if this is the case then shouldnt the ergenekon sentencw be removed as well as it has no citation?
Also,what about the armenian information removed and added many times? What does freeze mean? If not added back already when can we do so?
Regards, Veritylookingfortruth Veritylookingfortruth ( talk) 20:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! Page has been protected but just to answer your question, the section is Talk:Mansplaining#Mention_at_the_lead. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You have protected this article upon request on August 24. Please re-consider whether in view of the articles's history a mere semi-protection could be sufficient, given that the edit warring was performed only by IP's or very recent "new users" and that the article's talk page presently shows that further editing by WP authors would make sense. Thanks -- Chris Howard ( talk) 20:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I am commenting here to avoid disrupting your thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard.
I have had persistent difficulties with VM who insists there are roving bands of IPs (and sock-puppet editors) conspiring against him, across several topics, as a means to justify edit-warring and aggressiveness. This justification is easily testable, as he exhibits the same behavior with established editors. The behavior is most prominent in political articles.
I should mention I have been on the receiving end of this behavior. He has responded to several of my comments on article talk pages solely to accuse me of stalking and harassment, without addressing content or policy [1] [2] [3] - there are many more examples. This persists even in articles which I was the first to edit [1]. This is arguably the worst of his behavior but by no means the extent of it.
If the behavior were limited to our interactions it would prompt serious self-reflection, but I haven't experienced such hostile interactions with other editors, and VM has them with many. He has escaped several dozen complaints against him without sanction by obfuscating and deflecting until administrators lose interest. His apparent immunity to sanction seems only to have emboldened him. I have recently limited my article editing partly to avoid confrontation but there is a longterm problem that needs to be addressed. James J. Lambden ( talk) 17:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You have protected the Samuel Saiz page so I can not correct the seasonal appearance tables ... it is missing a Leeds United Totals row. And does it really need to be protected for as long as you have done so, attacks on Leeds players tend to die down a week or so after they sign/leave Exeter White ( talk) 10:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek has now started the same type of actions on the DREAM Act page as he has been doing on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals page. 170.178.156.22 ( talk) 00:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The program is done and covering up the facts is unacceptable. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, could you please lower the protection for the DACA article? It contains some inaccurate statements and is poorly formated but confirmed users like myself can't edit it. Article views just increased x20 within the last three days. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 08:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Where there was once one head, two more appeared. | |
Pure pun-ishment. [14] |
Hello. It's continued! Can you unlock the page? 31.223.133.218 ( talk) 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Question, I wonder if it's possible for you to close this move reqiest: Talk:Celebrity_Big_Brother#Requested_move_10_September_2017? From what I can tell the majority of move requests usually sit around in the backlog. If you can close it thanks! If not do you have any other suggestions? (I can't close it myself as I'm involved.) TheDoctorWho ( talk) 15:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Samsara, thanks for protecting anything Arab-Israeli related but you forgot to add the blue lock icon and create this one here for example for the protected pages in the bottom:
Can you make one for Template:Editnotices/Page/Dome of the Rock, Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel–Lebanon relations, Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel–Syria relations, vice versa? Thanks. Wrestlingring ( talk) 15:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I requested that ECP be placed on the page, which you reluctantly protected. However, at RfPP, you and Enigmaman had noted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict that if they need to be protected, there should be disruption by non-extended confirmed editors, and not just because it relates to WP:ARBPIA3. I still made the request despite the fact there was not much disruption on the page. Do you think it really needs to be protected? — MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The IP (possible sock) who had reinserted the same BLP problematic edit again should not be rewarded. I suggest you go back to last short version, as one editor seems unwilling to even start an RfC on the claims made. Thank you. Collect ( talk) 19:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed a section from an article (that is under DS which states: 1 revert/24 hrs - must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article) because an RfC a few months ago determined (nonadmin close) that consensus was to retain the POV tag and that a rough consensus showed the section was noncompliant with one or more PAGs. As you know, NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, so removal of that section was justified. I am not aware of ever retaining noncompliant sections in a BLP for such a long period of time, so I simply removed it and a disruptive editor reverted my edit, the NPOV tag with it, and provided an incorrect edit summary. On the 9/24 another discussion began about a possible TNT of that section and based on what I read, a quick consensus indicated delete & rewrite, [15], [16]. Will you please look into this because we're looking at a BLP violation, a violation of consensus, and a possible violation of DS? Atsme 📞 📧 02:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
VM, ATYW's issue with you is not the same as mine although your behavior is the same. I don't know what you think you're doing with all the crazy allegations, or are you just being your normal disruptive self? I've provided diffs for the July consensus as well as for the discussion that began on the 24th which also supports what I've stated. It's always the same ole blah, blah dramah most expect from you, VM. It appears you may be TB shopping the way you're acting. Atsme 📞 📧 03:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Your behavior here and now is exactly why I said what I said and why I am here now in hopes of getting something done about it without having to take you to the dramah boards. It appears you've had one too many cups of coffee. Atsme 📞 📧 03:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Alrighty then, next time I need an admin, I'll just position my cursor on the TP of EEng, close my eyes, scroll 3 window-lengths, and wherever it lands is the admin I'll ask. FBDB Atsme 📞 📧 23:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I was surprised to see List of states with limited recognition being given an indef 30/500 protection, and a big warning imposing 1RR on the entire page, based on an Arbcom judgement that seems pretty tangentially related. This appears to be in response to a single reverted edit of arguable benefit. Note that other recent edits by IPs there have had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict (they're mostly discussing North Korea). Indeed, the vast majority of edits to List of states with limited recognition could not conceivably be considered related to the Arab-Israeli dispute and most discussions involving the Arab-Israeli conflict at that talk page have been resolved without need for admin intervention.
Would you mind reconsidering whether this sort of protection is appropriate on this particular article? If you believe this is warranted, would you mind clarifying whether e.g. the 1RR you have imposed applies only to Arab-Israeli related edits, or to all edits whether or not they are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Kahastok talk 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for blocking this troll. He has been bugging me all day. Here are some other accounts that he has created today: [17]. Regards, WWGB ( talk) 13:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
There were two recent edits to Time by User:Pkbwcgs that are not good and I would like to fix them. I can't see why it was protected in the first place. Thank you. 108.20.213.77 ( talk) 02:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Samsara, what is your intention regarding the article Time? How long are you planning on having it semi-protected? I would appreciate it if you would lift any protection. I think we can manage the article against "disruptive" editors and also deal with content disputes without semi-protection. 108.20.213.77 ( talk) 06:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Was it your intention to block these IPs indefinitely? Regards. 121.94.137.73 ( talk) 03:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hiya, on Stephen Chow's article in the first paragraph, it says his net worth is $1 billion USD, I've questioned that and the citations don't back it up at all, it's all gossip to me, so I removed the sentence on the grounds of WP:GOSSIP and WP:NOTATABLOID. I didn't have any objects from a project page when I raised the point, but then not sure if anyone gave it a thought. The currency in the citations doesn't even match the statement. I am not sure the IPs from 171.*.*.* even know English that well. I was wondering if you could have a look for me, let me know if I am correct or not, cheers. Govvy ( talk) 12:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Samsara:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
– —usernamekiran
(talk)
21:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinkbeast ( talk) 18:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Why did you protect that article to only extended confirmed users? Also, why indefinite? Why not 3 or 6 months? Or even a year? ReddyHakky1998 ( talk) 09:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The version including Trump was the stable version. Editors besides myself, supported the version including Trump, such as User:Doc Strange,. Only one editor supports excluding Trump, and his logic relied on specious reasoning, such as his personal opinion that "Trump doesn't belong" even though the sources showed that nearly all commentators connected the October 15, 2017 subpoena of Donald Trump regarding the allegations of sexual assault against him (which he commented on at October 16, 2017, at the White House) to the Weinstein allegations. You are basically reverting to a version that was supported by only one editor, over the stable version that was supported by two editors. Why? Peacebroker ( talk) 23:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
See diff here by Doc_Strange supporting the inclusion of Trump several days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Me_Too_(hashtag)&oldid=809599762
That makes at least two editors in support, and only one editor who opposes, and who edit warred to delete this matter which has been in there for many days, with stability, until this person came along and decided to subject the world to his idiosyncratic, irrelevant opinions. I cited at least 6 sources that connected the Weinstein allegations to the Trump subpoena of October 15, 2017. Every source stated that the two events were not merely coincidental. Yet because one editor believes there is "no connection" because there are no "new allegations" (although there is a new subpoena of sitting president that just happens to come 10 days after this story broke" it must just be a coincidence. Why are you giving this person what he wants, when he A) has no other editors who support his views; B) he has no sources who support his views; C) he edit warred to delete sourced material that had been sitting there stably for several days? I do not understand your actions at all. Please look more closely. Peacebroker ( talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, EVEN THE SOLE EDITOR IN SUPPORT OF DELETING TRUMP concedes that the sources say it is connected; he merely opines that the sources are wrong: "many news articles about him mention Weinstein/#MeToo, but that doesn't mean they are connected." - IP editor on the talk page.
So basically, you reverted to the version which:
Hi, would it be possible to IP ban the troll who keeps using different usernames and tries to add Trump's name to the Me Too (hashtag) page, please? Not only does the person keep vandalizing the page, this person also uses very profane language to abuse other Wiki users. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posters5 ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posters5 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe the page is being vandalized again. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 05:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the Talk and History pages, you'll see that "Another Believer" is just making a nuisance of himself. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 05:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I see several Portal pages link to Modern evolutionary synthesis, which you quite reasonably redirected to a dab a while ago. It's not my field; please do you have any thoughts on where these links should now lead? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Samsara: thanks for upping the protection for Dennis Wise, at least no one can say that he is a very small man Pepper Gaming ( talk) Pepper Gaming ( talk) 13:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Samsara,
Could you remove PC1 since the article is semi protected indefinitely? -- 1989 19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Samsara. Just wanted to drop a quick note and let you know that I extended the page protection you applied to List of The Loud House episodes. This has been an ongoing issue at that article for quite some time and there has been some socking by a blocked editor thrown in as well. If this continues I may just protect the page indefinitely. Anyway I just wanted to let you know what I did and why. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Samsara. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Samsara, thanks for protecting the Chad Morris article. As requested, you can now lift the protection status per the Razorbacks website. Thanks, Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:A Way Out (video game) could also use something, it's being hit the same as the article page was. Cheers, He iro 05:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Neverrainy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Time: Dec 08, 2017 05:58:30
Message: Was this a mistake? Blocked without warning for vandalism but I can't see any vandalistic edits...
Notes:
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 05:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
RiceKid ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Time: Dec 08, 2017 14:29:30
Message: Hi, are you OK with my restoring TPA so they can appeal, there?
Notes:
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 14:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you protected several pages such as Fairy Tail and One Piece, but you did not add the template. Therefore, those pages are not 'protected' yet. Can you please check them? Thank you and have a nice day! Requiem II ( talk) 23:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you you uploaded a Semi-protection for article Lauren Jauregui can you show me how to do that for Normani Kordei. I already got the request started I just wanted more in sight on how to go about it. I feel as though her page too needs to be protected because we have users that vandalise her page. She has received enough coverage to keep it a stand alone and violators need to be stoped! Welcometothenewmillenium ( talk) 02:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for semi-protecting Johnny Manziel. However, because it is semi-protected, pending changes protection is now useless since all edits will be accepted, and since autoconfirmed users can't edit it, no edits will need to be reviewed. Can you remove the PC protection? — MRD2014 Happy Holidays! 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you lessen the protection for Swift if no one is going to edit it? The studios section and name of the tour have been wrong for many weeks as two examples. Studios was posted in Talk with no reply. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf ( talk)
Wow... It's not an edit war case! Have you checked their edits? They ignore sourced info and maps, and just add Afghanistan to article without providing any reliable source. They also falsify current sourced info. Sorry, but I don't agree with your comment on RPP and I submit my request again. How can I discuss anything with several random IPs and IP-hoppers who ignore everything and just like to add their country to that article?! -- Wario-Man ( talk) 14:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and have a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
Hey! I think you may have slightly misread the situation. There have been multiple attempts to create a consensus regarding the material. Including recent attempts by me to engage in discussion with those attempting to include the quote. I do not deny a real argument can be made for including it, and some sources that aren't written by Neo-Nazis do refer to it. However, this does not change the fact that the sources being shoved into this article by IPs have absolutely 0 place in a BLP. A anti-semitic "white identity" blog like Occidental Observer has no place being treated as a reliable source in a Wikipedia article. I also ask that you read the pages cited of the book I described as being written by a "fringe nutter": the whole thing is an entirely transparent anti-semitic rant about the Jewish agenda. It is the inclusion of these sources by IPs that clearly violates WP:BLP, not the quote itself, which is indeed referenced in other sources. BLPs of Jews should not be sourced to the writings of fringe, out and open anti-semites. Semi-protection is required, to stop this from happening. Brustopher ( talk) 18:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
those who want to include the material have refused to engage on the talk pageThis does not seem to reflect reality. I see plenty of discussion of this on the talk page, including the most recent post being by an IP and on this very issue. Samsara 11:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed twice now that IP's seem to target Iggy's talk page, he left a rather interesting message on my talk page a few days ago, I was wondering if you can also keep an eye on it. I was wondering if some protection is needed on it for him to stop these weird edits. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 11:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. You recently move-protected this article indefinitely. It is also edit-protected indefinitely and has been for some years. Protecting administrator is no longer active. Can you unprotect? Thanks, and happy Christmas. 87.81.130.219 ( talk) 13:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
As witnessed over the last two days, an anonymous user of varying IP address tried to express themselves, saying that there is an issue with the English language variation beginning with this edit by Future Perfect at Sunrise, which changed most words in the article to American English. However, as the anonymous user rightfoully states, the city is affiliated with British English way more than with American English. On top, there was no Engvar template ({{ Use American English}} / {{ Use British English}}) given on the article to justify the edit of changing it forcedly. I have since replaced most content with British English and added the according template to the article. What hinders this article from enhance is Zzuuzz, Favonian, Lectonar and RickinBaltimore constantly reverting the anonymous user instead of reading. Even if written in a hard langauge, it is easily visible that it is not spam or trolling. If there is something to discuss, wether American English goes over British English from your POV, seek for consensus here. Thanks, Lordtobi ( ✉) 17:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
5 July 2016 changes
10 February 2016 changes
9 February 2016 changes
29 October 2015 changes
Merry Christmas Samsara!!
Hi Samsara, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia!
,
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
13:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Samsara: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, — MRD2014 Merry Christmas! 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
A blessed feast to you and yours. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Samsara: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey there Samsara - just wanted to flag that I removed protection from the above. I don't think the level of vandalism is really high enough to warrant protection for four months. I'm happy to keep an eye on it and reinstate if necessary. Thanks! — fox 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)